-
What does this even mean though? What were the grounds for objection? What percentage of the chairities income was spent on salaries? (The answer is less than 1% for that time window). Why jump to conclusions and assume wrongdoing without knowing the details?
Stonehedge-
In short because I trust in the C.C. having attempted to do their job properly on this.
Previous Engagement Prior to the inquiry opening, the Commission
engaged with the charity on the following issues:In March 2021 the charity requested the regulator’s permission to
employ Hannah Ingram-Moore, a former trustee, on a salary of £60,000
per year, for 3 days a week. The Commission requested evidence of the
benchmarking exercise undertaken. The charity provided the Commission
with this evidence and a revised proposal to appoint Hannah
Ingram-Moore on a salary of £100,000 on a full-time basis. In July
2021 the regulator refused permission to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore as
chief executive on a salary of £100,000, considering the proposed
salary neither reasonable nor justifiable. In August 2021 the
Commission permitted the charity to appoint Hannah Ingram-Moore as
interim CEO on a salary of £85,000 per year, on a 3-month rolling
contract, for a maximum of 9 months whilst the trustees conducted an
open recruitment process. This period has now ended and the charity
has recruited a new CEO.Either that or this is a witch hunt conspiracy against are Sir Captain Tom and we should all march on our front gardens in outrage.
-
What percentage of the chairities income was spent on salaries? (The answer is less than 1% for that time window)
I don't really see how this is a relevant test for whether salaries are too high or too low.
rhb
NickCJ
.